So, true story. In Iraq, a Fox News reporter was at my camp asking a few questions. One of the dumbest things asked of me was if we were witnessing any oil being smuggled into Iraq.

I think it's pretty safe to say that most of us in the military absolutely hate reporters. Regardless of network or political affiliation, their only talent is to ask stupid questions and take your answers out of context.

Regardless of network or political affiliation, their only talent is to ask stupid questions and take your answers out of context.

I agree. I called in to a newpaper to gripe about them calling off a search for a friend. They asked me a few questions about him, and I hoped they'd get the word out, maybe get a few people out looking.

As terrible as the movie is, "In the Army Now" with Pauly Shore was quite enjoyable as a kid, especially when the evil dictator talked about how they knew the "secret" invasion was coming because they saw it on CNN. As if satellite TV was something only American's had.

In fact, action could have already been taken! It was noted that the attack on Aleppo seemed more coordinated than previous actions, especially considering that the majority of the militia there seem to have come from outside the city, indicating a well planned and coordinated attack!

It's possible foreign SOF operators are already embedded with the militia and are training and advising them.

Well, we are trying to use it on Syrian forces, but we've run into a minor problem with that plan, namely the fact that our sharks would rather eat Egyptians and keep swimming away every time we deploy them on the coast of Syria.

Oh boy, another big step towards proxy war between the US/Turkey/Saudi Arabia and Russia/Iran. And it's taking the slightly less bad but outgunned side in a sectarian civil war in a country of low economic value. What a great idea.

Russia's interest in Syria seems to be mostly limited to maintaining sovereignty and to avoid making domestic unrest in Russia worse. Their arm sales, while not intangible, are rather small and actually partly funded by Russian loans to Syria. The Russian naval base in Tartus is symbolic rather than of any actual value which means they'll posture about it, but back down if they're forced to.

China has essentially no interest in Syria aside from the same thing about domestic unrest and the sanctity of political sovereignty.

Russia and China are obstructionist, but hardly fighting a proxy war.

Turkey is not terribly happy about the situation, but their hands are also tied. They're not going to engage in any overt action without international support which isn't going to happen b/c of Russia and China, as mentioned above. Especially since this would open them up to internal tensions from groups like the Kurds.

Iran is obviously interested too, but they're still suffering a lot under the sanctions which contrary to the GOP line are actually doing damage.

Yea, you are right though that there is some evidence Saudi Arabia is already funding the Syrian opposition.

Where does that put us? A proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran which is already an undercurrent in many Middle Eastern conflicts.

Note: Somebody below mentioned Israel. Israel would probably rather not have a massacring madman with chemical weapons across the border. I don't think Israel will be terribly sad if Assad goes.

And it's taking the slightly less bad but outgunned side

The US really has no option given its previous rhetoric but to support the opposition. Obama also doesn't want to start a controversial war right before the election, so he's doing a less resource intensive/visible initiative that he hopes will provide better returns than boots on the ground.

The alternative is letting the civil war continue and Assad to possibly retain his power. How do you think that would help US relations with the Middle East if we decided to abandon the opposition to the Assad regime?

slightly less bad but outgunned side in a sectarian civil war

"slightly less bad" and "sectarian" honestly sounds like the classic Islamists-are-evil ploy. Not every conflict in the Middle East is fundamentally religious (no pun intended). There are plenty of valid reasons that the Syrian opposition have for demanding change. Post-revolution Syria may not be the best thing for the US since sliced bread, but that doesn't mean the country doesn't deserve democracy.

a country of low economic value

Yes, Syria is not terribly important economically, but that's a fairly cynical view. Should we only care about atrocities in countries that are economically important?

Plus, it is important in terms of geopolitics (or is perceived as such) because of its ties to Iran, symbolic position in the Arab Spring, etc.

What a great idea.

Honestly, I think this is the best approach Obama can execute right now, and indicative of his very practical and well-reasoned foreign policy. Push for international action, but also hedge your bets since that's not likely to be particularly easy. So reasonably good idea.

Russia's interest in Syria seems to be mostly limited to maintaining sovereignty and to avoid making domestic unrest in Russia worse.

Russian interests are about preventing Saudi/American natural gas pipelines competing with Gazprom's for the European market. (Especially for German energy requirements now that they are going non-nuclear)

China has essentially no interest in Syria aside from the same thing about domestic unrest and the sanctity of political sovereignty.

Russian and China have a pact.

Iran is obviously interested too,...

Yes, because they have an interest in getting their natural gas flowing to Europe (via Azerbaijan) and Pakistan.

Yes, Syria is not terribly important economically,...

Absolutely wrong. Syria is a CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE country for both the Saudi's and Western interests.

All natural gas flowing from Saudi must flow through Syria to get to Europe.

Where ever bombs go off in the region, you are sure to find gas pipelines.

Similar types of disturbances are happening in Northern Nigeria up to Algeria.

I think this is the best approach Obama can execute right now, and indicative of his very practical and well-reasoned foreign policy

This is actually the foreign policy of international gas companies who are being aided by various western administrations.

Do you ever wonder who has major interests in gas companies in the region? Well here something interesting...
Noble Energy has a fairly well known lobbyist Bill Clinton (Wall Street Journal).

Did you notice the date of the article above that announced that massive gas discovery in the Middle East?...the month before the Middle East went into violent revolt. Just a coincidence of course.

It looks to me that Republicans are very interested in helping their sponsors (George Bush's Gulf Wars), and the Democrats are very interested in helping their sponsors (It's been happening since January 2011).

In other words, whatever "Administration" is in power, it appears our leaders (and ex-leaders) could be tools of global energy interests. This sentiment applies NOT just to the USA, but also the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria ...

The Russian naval base in Tartarus is symbolic rather than of any actual value which means they'll posture about it, but back down if they're forced to.

It's called Tartus and it is the ONLY Russian base in the Mediterranean, their only leverage against France and the UK in that area. There has been a shadow war over it for the past ten years if not more. Russia has already lost a GRU general defending it, pumped shitloads of money in the form of armaments for Assad and rececntly sent about a thousand guys to put the base on a war footing (evacuate all non-essential personnel, prepare destruction of secret and sensitive items, shore up defences, stuff like that).

No, they will stand by Assad to the bitter end, because they know part of the price the insurgency pays for US help will be Tartus.

Something that concerns me is the fact that there are a lot of people fleeing the country, which is putting a lot of strain on neighboring countries to support the refugees. With all of these people leaving quickly with legitimate reasons it will make it very easy for arms smuggling into surrounding countries. By providing weapons to the Syrian rebels we may be inadvertently providing weapons to the terrorists we are at war with.

Refugee flows and arms proliferation are a real concern. It seems that neighboring countries are handling the refugee flows reasonably well at the moment (though more humanitarian support in that instance can't really hurt)

Arms proliferation though seems to be an inevitable result of civil wars in developing countries. Really we can only hope that there is an efficient demilitarization post-conflict. That's way optimistic, but we can cross our fingers, right? :P

I must disagree with the statement on Israel. Assad, while a gigantic douchebag, has been one of the more religiously tolerant arab dictators in recent memory. The last thing Israel wants is for him to be canned and replaced by a die hard Islamist hell bent on ridding the middle east of the zionist infestation.

I always wonder why so many people decribes dicators as being "madmen" when they evidently are not. Stalin was not mad, nor was hitler and i can tell you with confidence that franco himself was the opposite of a madman. They all were very conscious of what they were doing

I posit that there are no great actions deemed sane when such power is had. When a man acts as a king, ruler, monarch, judge and jury over many others, he always has a big target painted on his back by both eager politicians and the disenchanted public alike. There are always some of both, and a power vacuum looks extremely enticing to the most desperate of men.

If a man takes hold of the reigns, either sacrificing his morality and ethics to cause swift major changes ultimately for a greater good (in theory), or by sheer will and brute force in a mad ego driven thirst, he must always suspect those around him or he must trust in some divine plan so that he can focus all attentions on the plans at hand. Both would look insane to outsiders, especially in aftermath of a fall. It's crazy to act like a paranoid tyrant, and it's crazy to act like one and NOT suspect everyone. If you are a tyrant, for whatever reasons, your decisions will be deemed insane. And probably are.

I'm not knowledgable enough regarding Stalin or Franco to say anything about them. However, I know that while Hitler may have been conscious of his actions, he was not sane. In the latter half of the war, he made many terrible tactical decisions. It is suspected his syphilis had begun to affect his thought processes. Before you say, "Attacking Russia was actually a smart move," let me point out two things. First, many of the decisions were actually small tactical mistakes that eventually added up. Second, Napoleon.

Fair enough. Assad is, indeed, acting quite rational. Mostly, I use terms like that to communicate with a broader audience. The general public doesn't really like to hear that dictators who are fighting bloody civil wars are actually fairly rational.

Thanks for the good, thoughtful post. I don't really agree with much of the ideological backing of what you're saying here but most of your facts are pretty straight which is a breath of fresh air around here, particularly regarding China and Russia and the reasons behind their actions wrt Syria. I disagree with you on a few things though.

Note: Somebody below mentioned Israel. Israel would probably rather not have a massacring madman with chemical weapons across the border. I don't think Israel will be terribly sad if Assad goes.

I think the Israeli-Syrian relationship is more complicated than that. The Assad government and Israel are official enemies to be sure, but if one looks at the actual facts on the ground, Syria under Assad has been a rather stable neighbor for Israel. They have not let go of the Golan issue obviously, and there is the issue with the support of Nezbollah but there's a certain amount of stability and equilibrium in the Assad government not found in, say, Lebanon. It's also important to keep in mind that Assad is not a "massacring madman with chemical weapons" by any stretch of the imagination - no chemical weapons have been used yet, and though the government response has been harsh, it's hardly been insane or unexpected given the situation, and there's no real reason for Israel to care about the harshness of those actions beyond how they affect the Israeli state. I think Israel might understandably be worried about what comes after Assad in Syria, since there's little chance a new regime, an ostensibly more Democratic one, is going to be more kind to Israel on these various issues. Of course, the Syrian opposition and any post-Assad government is going to be heavily under the sway of the Gulf countries who are generally friendly with Israel despite rhetoric, so you could also see something like the empty rhetoric we're currently seeing from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt on the Israeli issues.

The alternative is letting the civil war continue and Assad to possibly retain his power. How do you think that would help US relations with the Middle East if we decided to abandon the opposition to the Assad regime?

I don't think it would help the US in its relationship with the reactionary, oppressive Gulf monarchies that are largely funding the opposition. But I think it's a valid question to ask if the US's continued support of these monarchies are really in the long term best interests of the US, the region, and the world at large. The Assad government is not "good" or particularly worth defending, but I'm not sure a new Middle East generally under the sway of Gulf-financed Islamists is much of an improvement for anyone but the monarchies.

"slightly less bad" and "sectarian" honestly sounds like the classic Islamists-are-evil ploy. Not every conflict in the Middle East is fundamentally religious (no pun intended). There are plenty of valid reasons that the Syrian opposition have for demanding change. Post-revolution Syria may not be the best thing for the US since sliced bread, but that doesn't mean the country doesn't deserve democracy.

To be honest I think this is just hand wavey and dismissive, and also rather scattered. "Slightly less bad" and "sectarian" are not ploys, they are accurate descriptions of the conflict here. The rebels are no angels, and I say this not because they are Islamists (not all of them are, and there are varying stripes of "Islamists" among their ranks) but because they have committed war crimes and atrocities just as Assad's troops have. Many of them are very sectarian, though not all are. You say there are valid reasons for Syrians to rebel against the Assad government - I agree. But there are many people and many interests involved in this conflict and just as the opposition is not dominated by frothing at the mouth Taliban-esque Wahabbis, it is also not dominated by peace-loving liberals forced into a bad situation. This is a valid concern that you can't simply dismiss. I also think portraying critics of the opposition as not supportive of democracy in Syria is a strawman, and that the choice between Assad and democracy is a false dichotomy. Many people here are concerned exactly because an opposition dominated by foreign funding from Gulf monarchs does not exactly bode well for a democratic Syria.

US is involved for really two reasons. Rebels are going to win, so they want good will with the rebels - and rebels are going to get control of bio-weapons, so the US wants to make sure Al-Qaida aren't involved.

How do you think that would help US relations with the Middle East if we decided to abandon the opposition to the Assad regime?

It's only abandoning if you support them to begin with. If we would have just sat back and kept out of Syria's internal conflict, we wouldn't be abandoning them, but now that we've committed support to them, we're pretty much stuck. It's ridiculous that the US feels the need to be involved in every conflict everywhere in the world.

Also, I disagree that Syria is not economically important. It is a key hub for several major oil and gas pipelines.

One angle is the US vs Russia. Aside from Iran and Syria, the US controls the rest of the Middle East already, so Russia does not want to lose all control. And if Russia can't protect Syria from US imperialism then what does that say about Russia's ability to protect its proxy Iran? However, being a nuclear power, Russia has means to maintain control, and I doubt it will relinquish Syria without a regional war at the least, and a remotely possible world wide nuclear war at the most.

Secondly there is the oil angle. Currently Syrian oil is sold to the EU and the contracts are mostly with Total (France) and Shell (Dutch/British) (although a large percentage of profit is maintained by the Syrian government). It's possible that Total and Shell would be opposing a revolution, unless they made some deal to maintain or increase their profit. US oil like Exxon and Chevron are probably pushing for a piece of pie. Oil probably plays less of a role than politics, religion and race.

Then there are the religious divides. Christians make up 10% of the Syrian population and stand to lose massively if there is a revolution. They are pretty affulent and fear losing their homes and lives, with religious massacres being a real possibility. Other ethnic minorities like the Alawis (and a few other Shiite minorities) may face genocide too. The Vatican is trying to prevent the overthrow. The US is aware of this and declared war on the Vatican pre-emptively with Vatileaks in an ironic attempt at emulating wikileaks. US/Vatican relations were pretty bad anyway seeing how the US has been backing players like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Israel is gambling that an overthow will result in a failed state more like Libya than Egypt, with Putin warning Israel that Syria is the devil you know. Predicably though, Netanyahu supports a war.

Turkey is in a quandary. If it backs a war, then it will face its own civil war with separitist Kurds, which will drag in the whole region as the Kurds attempt to create a state, but the delusions of grandeur of a new Ottoman Empire may be too much to resist flexing some muscle.

Then it starts to get really messy when you start looking at Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, of which my understanding is cloudy. When Hariri was assassinated the Saudis (and the West) tried to pin it on Syria which ultimately failed. It was either Israel or Hezbollah apparently. Anyway, the Saudi, Syrian relationship now involves the Saudis telling Syria if the move troops close to their own border they will attack.

TLDR; There are so many comflicting interests, all represented in Syria. In fact, all the big global and regional powers have interests in Syria, making this conflict so important.

It matters in that, with such a clear advantage on the US & Co. side, its unlikely that it become more than just a proxy war. And don't kid yourself: the Syrian rebels are very much willing to fight and die for their cause, and they have been doing so long before we ever started arming them. We're just making it more like that they'll win.

Those fundamentalist idiots are standing in the way of their own victory. They have killed some leading members of a large Sunni tribe they accuse of being pro-regime. Result: the entire clan is now fighting alongside the Syrian army. Keep it up dudes! Also: Christian minorities are arming themselves, aided by the regime, in fear of a fundamentalist takeover. you can bet your ass the Druze (know for their fighting skills), the Alawites and other minorities will follow or are already doing the same thing. The minorities are highly motivated, because they know they are fighting for survival. This kind of uprising creates its own enemies.

There is also a military strategic element to it- not having their military on our side, as someone else said- but simply having their land to fly over and their bases to land at is very valuable (apparently more valuable than human rights for Saudis)

Why is Obama's foreign policy so much like Bush's? I thought he was suppose to be change? Troop surge in Afghanistan, following the Bush plan in Iraq, drone strikes in Pakistan, bombing Libya, meddling in Syria... not exactly the foreign policy of "change".

He promised a surge in Afghanistan throughout the 2008 campaign. He did.

He promised to go after Al Qaeda more aggressively throughout the 2008 campaign. He did.

He promised to end the war in Iraq. He did.

With these, you got exactly the change that Obama promised throughout a 2+ year campaign. If you expected any different than the above, you're an idiot.

There were no promises surrounding Libya before the election, but Libya was simply excellent foreign policy. It was a great opportunity to use very little military force to help a country form a democracy and oust a dictator. Unlike Iraq, we went in to support a popular pro-democracy uprising. The Libyan people wanted regime change, and we helped only when they were about to get massacred. Saddam was not facing any uprising.

This was done without putting a single US soldier on the ground. Military force was used for a couple months rather than more than a decade. Libya is now a fledgling democracy and the Middle East is better as a result. With Bush, we'd be in the middle of a decade long occupation and have many more dead bodies on every side.

Regarding Syria, what would it say about the US as a country if we simply ignored the atrocities there? We'd lose a lot of standing in the world, and foreign relations far beyond Syria would be very negatively impacted.

The most shocking thing about Obama's foreign policy, actually his whole presidency, has been how closely he stuck to what he said in the campaign. Mostly no one listens to what specific promises candidates make since they rarely do the same when in office. Obama said he'd draw down slowly in Iraq, and that was precisely what he did. He said we needed to be more involved in Afghanistan, again exactly what happened. He even suggested more targeted strikes, though this was before 'drone' became such a common word. I think the real question is did you not follow the campaign at all.

He never claimed he was anti-war. In the primaries and one point he said something like we should stop fighting the dumb war in Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. Sorry not going to google for it right now.

He is hinting that there are Al-Qaeda members among the rebels. He is probably correct, just like Libya. Al-Qaeda recruits using the "freedom fighter" label, a civil war would be an excellent place to recruit some youngsters to blow some shit up later on.

I thought the US recently cautioned some other Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia and Qatar I think) that they shouldn't be so hasty to give weapons because of what happened in Afghanistan.

They solicit help and grow their beards to look more religous. Al-Qaeda has more than a decade in fighting experience against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're explosive making ability is also a killer tactic. A FSA rebel was talked about recently about how they couldn't attack a military base for weeks. Suddenly Jihadis pop up and launch a suicide truck at it. The surviving soldiers evacuated as quickly as possibly.

Where did you hear this? I heard the same from NPR and various other American sources, but they are always referring to passive resistances/peaceful demonstrators, not necessarily the rebels more willing to resort to violence.

We need to stop calling Al Quaeda terrorists, its such a stupid word, and makes it seem like their only objective is death, destruction and chaos. Al Quaeda are theocratic fascists, They want to create a new Caliphate. A world under Islam.

What do you think happens to pro-government supporters in rebel held areas? Live in peace? Yeah right. They get accused of being spies or "shabbia" a term rebels throw around to legitimise their murderous attacks on civilians. They even go after minority Alawites,Shias or Christians who stay neutral. The problem is that the vast majority of news comes from opposition sides and they're not going to tell you the bad things they do.

Also no one seems to questions why the rebels keep bringing the fights to pro-government areas where they have no support. Yesterday there was an attack in Damascus in the Christian quarter. Those Christians are pro-government but stay neutral. They neither support the FSA or want them there. Yet the FSA went to their area to kill. Even in the Battle of Aleppo no one is bothered with the fact that Aleppo is a city that is and has been loyal to the government for a long time. It's had minor protests but the biggests one were for the government. Now the rebels are trying to turn it into Bengazhi. Bengazhi had a majority anti-Gaddafi support. In Aleppo it's the other way around. Most of the figthers in Aleppo aren't even from the city. They're outsiders.

Yes and remember Obama won a Peace Prize and now he's helping forment a civil war in a country that could destabalise Iraq and Lebanon. Someone who helps a rebellion that is composed of 300+ different milita groups shouldn't be holding the same Prize that Mandela has.

They're not terrorists because they are not committing acts with the intent of causing terror. They are engaging in open warfare against what they deem an oppressive government, and their goal is to topple said government, not to cause mass panic amongst the populace. They are working for the people, not against them. They are no more terrorists than the Confederate army was.

So can we expect another Taliban popping up here? Our kids will get their very own 9/11 because we trained a bunch of cunts to fight another bunch of cunts. When are we going to learn that the enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend. I say fuck them.

Because the rebels are a mix of Al-Qaeda, Mujahideen, and Muslim Brotherhood. We're literally turning Syria over to terrorist organizations. We should stay out of this, both sides are bad in this conflict.

Russia Today is not a respectable source for news on Syria. Along with some al qaeda members and muslim brotherhood(which there is no reason to label as terrorist) there are also ordinary citizens who are sick and tired of being tortured and murdered for peaceful protests.

Calling them all terrorists shows that you either have no idea about this conflict and/or are an agent.

The novelty of this particular operation is that it has been public via the executive authorization. Since at least the contra affair associated with the nixon administration, the international contribution of executive branch officials has played a consistently forceful, if often clandestine, role in the management of international affair.

The real question for me is why Obama proceeded with this in the way that he did, when it clearly would have been possible for him to have allowed the operation to remain secretive. Perhaps he does truly have some affinity for the transparent executive department he so frequently espouses during his campaign speeches.

In any case, I regard the decision as testament to the overwhelming new power of social media at leveraging the ability of governmental officials to proceed without the assurance that their actions would remain unobserved. While this development is arguably bad, the fact that we are discussing it all is to be sure a positive development.